Following the sentencing hearings of two controversial cases in February, many people were left asking why the penalties turned out so differently.Casside Cherry, 16, and Trevon Elmore, 18, were convicted by a jury in December on charges of first-degree wanton endangerment, third-degree criminal abuse and tampering with physical evidence, after it was determined they had discarded a newborn baby in a dumpster in July 2015.That same month, a jury also convicted Cole Yates, 22, of first-degree criminal abuse, after a jury determined he broke a 5-month-old baby's arm.

Both cases were sentenced on Feb. 10. Cherry and Elmore each received 12 months of supervised probation. Yates was sentenced to seven years in prison.Following media reports of the sentencing results, several people took to social media to express amazement or disagreement with the wide disparity.

Others floated conspiracy theories, and The Sun received letters from readers questioning the judge's decisions.In response, McCracken Circuit Judge Craig Clymer, who presided over both cases, sat down with The Sun to talk about a judge's role in sentencing and how the two cases ended the way they did.Clymer explained a judge's discretion in sentencing is limited by statute, meaning there are laws in place that outline what punishment a judge can legally impose for each specific charge."The legislature sets the maximum and minimum sentences for criminal offenses, so that keeps the judges in bounds," he said. "When these laws are enacted, they are statewide laws that every judge in every county has to abide by."These parameters, the judge said, eliminate a judge's personal opinions, beliefs or feelings about a crime when sentencing an offender and provide some uniformity from courtroom to courtroom.By the time a majority of cases reach the sentencing phase, Clymer said sentence recommendations have already been made either through a plea agreement or by a jury, leaving the judge with very little to decide."Most of the time, my role is to look at the relevant statute and decide whether someone is eligible to have the sentence probated and whether probation is appropriate."When it came to the Cherry and Elmore case, Clymer said two main factors played into their sentencing.First, both teens were minors when they were charged — Elmore was 17 and Cherry was 15 — and second, they were convicted on lesser charges."Cherry and Elmore were certified as youthful offenders — meaning they could be tried as adults — under the law, because their initial charges included a Class B felony," Clymer said.After the baby was found, the teens were each charged with attempted murder, a Class B felony, first-degree criminal abuse, a Class C felony, and tampering with physical evidence, a Class D felony.But when the case went to trial, the jury returned convictions on lesser charges that no longer qualified them for youthful offender status. That restricted the penalty to what would be permitted under the juvenile code.

"So since they could not have been certified as youthful offenders, we had to treat them as juveniles in sentencing Ã¢ Â¦ and based on the statute, a juvenile can only be incarcerated for a maximum of 90 days."Both teens had already served well beyond 90 days, Clymer said, adding all he could do then was impose a period of probation.Yates, on the other hand, was an adult when he was charged and convicted of a Class C felony punishable by five to 10 years in prison, and a jury recommended a sentence of seven years, by which the judge abided.The only decision left for Clymer was whether to probate Yates' sentence, and statute said he was not eligible."I couldn't have given him probation even if I wanted to," the judge said.Ultimately, Clymer said the outcomes of the two cases were determined by different statutes.​"They were completely different situations," he said. "No two cases and no two people are alike, so you can't compare one case to another. Every case is different."